SCOTUs has another gun case, and it should be interesting

[Uncensored2008]

the ONLY reason that this precedent of historical usurpation as 'legal' is only there because the American people have been dumbed down to the point that they actually believe that the government is the arbiter of the limits of their own power, which is patently false.

In the case of Marbury v. Madison, one branch of the government was going to have to clarify the intent of the Constitution. I agree with Jefferson that it should have been Congress. Marshall usurped the power before there was any sort of public debate. Jefferson wrote a scathing rebuke, but no action was taken by Congress and the power stuck. 200 years later, the only way that will change is through either a direct Constitutional Amendment or a Convention of States.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

In the case of Marbury v. Madison, one branch of the government was going to have to clarify the intent of the Constitution. I agree with Jefferson that it should have been Congress. Marshall usurped the power before there was any sort of public debate. Jefferson wrote a scathing rebuke, but no action was taken by Congress and the power stuck. 200 years later, the only way that will change is through either a direct Constitutional Amendment or a Convention of States.

or a reawakening of the people. It's OUR Constitution to interpret, not the governments.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Always love it when wingers “interpret” the Constitution as if it was a static document, ah, according to the Constitution, women are second class citizens and Black Americans are only three fifths of a person, so I guess according to your thinking that is still Constitutionally true today

NEXT

While I'm vastly more qualified to interpret the Constitution than you are, that is not what I have done here. I've pointed out historical fact. If you had even a scintilla of intellectual curiosity, you could look Marbury up on Wikipedia.

I find it amusing that you as a mindless drone of your Reich bleat the idiocy regarding "3/5ths."

So, should the oligarchs of the South have been afforded more power by counting enslaved people so they could send more representatives to congress to impose their political will? Because THAT was the issue. Slaves should not have been enumerated at all. Let the filthy oligarchs lose most representation. democrats always support oligarchs and tyrants - because democrats are stupid. Had the slaves not been counted at all, the sin of slavery would have ended far sooner.

Tell me, what is the difference between a Georgia Plantation in 1830 and Apple today?

Both use slaves. Both are run by oligarchs. Both are loved and defended by democrats.

democrats never change.

 

[Uncensored2008]

or a reawakening of the people. It's OUR Constitution to interpret, not the governments.

How would that work?

The concept that it is our Constitution fits with Jefferson's idea that the representatives of the people, i.e. congress have the authority to interpret. Sadly, congress at the time failed to challenge Marshall.

 

[archives]

have you ever heard the word 'Amendment'??????

NEXT

So the Constitution you think is immovable has been changed and interpreted, and to carry it further, Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, gives us everything from an Air Force to the Selective Service, and if you want to get technical, even the right to privacy which is not mentioned in the Constitution

 

[Into the Night]

Except that is not against the Constitution - the Constitution is simply silent on the subject.




{[FONT="]Precedent refers to a [/FONT][/COLOR][URL="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/court"]court[/URL][FONT="] [/FONT][/COLOR][URL="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/decision"]decision[/URL][FONT="] that is considered as [/FONT][/COLOR][URL="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/authority"]authority[/URL][FONT="] for deciding subsequent [/FONT][/COLOR][URL="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/case"]cases[/URL][FONT="] involving identical or similar [/FONT][/COLOR][URL="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fact"]facts[/URL][FONT="], or similar [/FONT][/COLOR][URL="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/legal"]legal[/URL][FONT="] [/FONT][/COLOR][URL="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/issue"]issues[/URL][FONT="]. Precedent is incorporated into the doctrine of [/FONT][/COLOR][URL="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis"]stare decisis[/URL][FONT="] and requires courts to apply the [/FONT][/COLOR][URL="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/law"]law[/URL][FONT="] in the same manner to cases with the same facts. Some [/FONT][/COLOR][URL="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/judge"]judges[/URL][FONT="] have stated that [/FONT][/COLOR][URL="https://law.justia.com/cases/florida/supreme-court/2007/sc05-1295.html"]precedent ensures that individuals in similar situations are treated alike instead of based on a particular judge’s personal views[/URL][FONT="].}


[/FONT][/COLOR][URL="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/precedent"]precedent | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)[/URL]

It is against the Constitution to ban or limit any weapon (including any gun).

NOTHING gives Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court or any federal court the authority to ban or limit any gun.
NOTHING gives any State the authority to override the 2nd amendment.

If the Constitution does not specifically give the government or an officer an authority, they DO NOT HAVE THAT AUTHORITY. You cannot change the Constitution via 'precedence'.

 

[archives]

In the case of Marbury v. Madison, one branch of the government was going to have to clarify the intent of the Constitution. I agree with Jefferson that it should have been Congress. Marshall usurped the power before there was any sort of public debate. Jefferson wrote a scathing rebuke, but no action was taken by Congress and the power stuck. 200 years later, the only way that will change is through either a direct Constitutional Amendment or a Convention of States.

Of course Jefferson thought Congress, it was a new D/R Congress, and the appointed Judges were Adam’s and Marshall was a Federalist. Plus Jefferson himself, the supposed strict constructionist, didn’t let the Constitution get in his way when he purchased Louisiana. Jefferson wasn’t even in Philadelphia when the Constitution

 

[archives]

or a reawakening of the people. It's OUR Constitution to interpret, not the governments.

Tell us, how exactly do the people interpret the Constitution?

 

[NiftyNiblick]

You cannot change the Constitution via 'precedence'.

Who's "you?"

Also, if one can't change the Constitution, one can ignore it instead.
The Constitution is what--a few sheets of parchment?
What defense does dried up parchment have for itself?

The judicial branch can interpret as it sees fit,
the executive branch can enforce as it sees fit,
but old paper can't do jack shit.

 

[archives]

While I'm vastly more qualified to interpret the Constitution than you are, that is not what I have done here. I've pointed out historical fact. If you had even a scintilla of intellectual curiosity, you could look Marbury up on Wikipedia.

I find it amusing that you as a mindless drone of your Reich bleat the idiocy regarding "3/5ths."

So, should the oligarchs of the South have been afforded more power by counting enslaved people so they could send more representatives to congress to impose their political will? Because THAT was the issue. Slaves should not have been enumerated at all. Let the filthy oligarchs lose most representation. democrats always support oligarchs and tyrants - because democrats are stupid. Had the slaves not been counted at all, the sin of slavery would have ended far sooner.

Tell me, what is the difference between a Georgia Plantation in 1830 and Apple today?

Both use slaves. Both are run by oligarchs. Both are loved and defended by democrats.

democrats never change.

“more qualified,” and he proves it by bloviating personal attacks and offering a high school understanding of American History

Obviously needed again, NEXT

 

[archives]

Who's "you?"

Also, if one can't change the Constitution, one can ignore it instead.
The Constitution is what--a few sheets of parchment?
What defense does dried up parchment have for itself?

The judicial branch can interpret as it sees fit,
the executive branch can enforce as it sees fit,
but old paper can't do jack shit.

Forget it, he, actually most of the them, have little understanding of the Constitution, all you get out of them is the same inane strict constructionist view that was antiquated shortly after it was written when the actual operation of governing became reality

 

[SmarterthanYou]

How would that work?

The concept that it is our Constitution fits with Jefferson's idea that the representatives of the people, i.e. congress have the authority to interpret. Sadly, congress at the time failed to challenge Marshall.

congress doesn't have the authority to interpret either. It is the peoples document, one that creates and defines the limitations of each branch. It is up to the people to interpret that constitution, which is done through impeachment, censure, recalls, and above all, jury nullification. If the government oversteps it's bounds, we the people have numerous options for reigning in that over stepping government.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

So the Constitution you think is immovable has been changed and interpreted, and to carry it further, Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, gives us everything from an Air Force to the Selective Service, and if you want to get technical, even the right to privacy which is not mentioned in the Constitution

you make yourself look dumber with every post, especially where it concerns a document you apparently have no idea about.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Tell us, how exactly do the people interpret the Constitution?

As I previously stated, we the people have many options for reigning in a government that steps outside of it's limitations. impeachment, recalls, and best of all, jury nullification.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

you make yourself look dumber with every post, especially where it concerns a document you apparently have no idea about.

No, STY, he doesn't.

You're stuck in some sort of loop/bubble hybrid
where Jesus,
this time taking the form of our "Founders,"
formulated the Republican agenda,
called it the "Constitution,"
and it's not to be questioned.

I don't blame you, STY.
This is that of which you're capable.
How can that be your fault?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

No, STY, he doesn't.

he absolutely does. so do you. the constitution was created to limit the government, not the people. you and archives want to use it to control and regulate the people, which is the exact opposite of the founders.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The judicial branch can interpret as it sees fit,

The Judicial branch can do nothing absent the authority granted to it by the Constitution.

the executive branch can enforce as it sees fit,

The Executive branch can do nothing absent the authority granted to it by the Constitution.

but old paper can't do jack shit.

The Constitution is the basis of all power by the Federal Government.

The federal government can't do jack shit outside of the Constitution. Without the authority of law, the government is based only on might and we have not only the right, but the responsibility to resist with any means possible.

 

[Uncensored2008]

“more qualified,” and he proves it by bloviating personal attacks and offering a high school understanding of American History

Obviously needed again, NEXT

Poor Arachnid, so out of your depth but so determined to promote your Reich.

I see you ducked your "3/5ths" idiocy.

 

[Into the Night]

Of course Jefferson thought Congress, it was a new D/R Congress, and the appointed Judges were Adam’s and Marshall was a Federalist. Plus Jefferson himself, the supposed strict constructionist, didn’t let the Constitution get in his way when he purchased Louisiana. Jefferson wasn’t even in Philadelphia when the Constitution

The Constitution authorizes Congress to purchase land.
It does NOT allow the Supreme Court to usurp authority.

 

[Into the Night]

Tell us, how exactly do the people interpret the Constitution?

Through their States. RQAA.